Dalit Christians seek SC status, hoist black flag at St Mary's Cathedral in protest
2
3
4
Madurai: A black flag was hoisted at St Mary's Cathedral here on Sunday as part of a protest demanding the inclusion of dalit Christians in the Scheduled Castes (SC) list. The demonstration was led by Archbishop of Madurai Antonysamy Savarimuthu and Bishop Jeyasingh Prince Prabhakar.
Addressing reporters, Archbishop Savarimuthu said the demand was not for any special favour but for rightful entitlements. "This is not a protest of dalit Christians or Christians alone; it is not a minority protest. Every citizen must get their rights," he said. He noted that dalit Sikhs and Buddhists were included in the SC list after protests, but dalit Christians have been denied the same for 75 years on religious grounds.
The protest was joined by Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi's Ellalan, Madurai South MLA Boominathan, Untouchability Eradication Front Madurai district president Balasubramanian, Tamil Nadu Women's Movement representative Arokia Mary, and Dalit rights NGO Evidence director Kathir. They urged the government to take immediate steps to ensure constitutional safeguards and reservation benefits for Dalit Christians.
MSID:: 123218931 413 |
Stay updated with the latest local news from your
city
on
Times of India
(TOI). Check upcoming
bank holidays
,
public holidays
, and current
gold rates
and
silver prices
in your area.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
2 hours ago
- Indian Express
CJI not superior to other SC judges, has same judicial powers: Justice Gavai
The Chief Justice of India is not superior to other judges of the Supreme Court and exercises the same judicial powers as the rest, Chief Justice B R Gavai said on Tuesday. The CJI made the observation as a three-judge bench, presided by him and comprising Justices K Vinod Chandran and N V Anjaria, took up an application by the Enforcement Directorate for recall of the court's April 26, 2023 judgment in Ritu Chhabaria vs. Union of India & Ors case. A two-judge bench of Justices (retired) Krishna Murari and C T Ravikumar it its 2023 judgment deprecated the 'practice' of investigating agencies filing chargesheet in court even before completion of probe so as to deny default bail to accused, and said that even in such cases the right of the accused to default bail will not be extinguished. As per the law, the chargesheet has to be filed within 60 days from the date of arrest of the accused in cases triable by lower courts and 90 days in cases triable by a sessions court. Failure to file the chargesheet within this period entitles an accused to default bail. Days after the April 26 ruling, the ED approached the SC and told a bench presided by then CJI D Y Chandrachud that the Delhi High Court had granted bail to the accused in a case probed by it based on the SC judgment in the Ritu Chhabaria case. The agency pointed out that the decision will have nationwide repercussions. By order dated May 12, 2023, the SC suspended the operation of the April 26 judgment. On Tuesday, CJI Gavai expressed his displeasure over the one-judge bench, even if that be the CJI-headed bench, hearing appeals against judgements of any other bench of the SC. 'When a bench of two learned judges of this court grants any relief, can another bench, merely because it sits in court number 1, of the same strength, sit in appeal over that judgment,' asked CJI Gavai. He said, 'We believe in adherence to the judicial propriety, judicial discipline. If we go on permitting this, then one bench merely because it does not like an order, will go on interfering with the orders of the other bench.' 'The Chief Justice of India is not superior to the other judges. He is the first among the others. The CJI exercises the same judicial powers as all other judges of this court,' the CJI said. Appearing for ED, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the three-judge bench that the petitioner in the matter in which the April 26 judgment was delivered had 'misused' the court's jurisdiction. He said initially, a person filed a petition saying her husband was in jail and sought permission to allow her to send him home-cooked food. 'Thereafter the petitioner (in the April 26 matter) filed a similar petition that 'my husband is also in jail, so permit me to serve him home-cooked food'. The petitioner further pointed out that a similar petition (the first petition) is pending before a particular bench… Both matters are listed together. Then first (petition) pales into insignificance. Subsequently, an Interlocutory Application (IA) is filed…in the second petition where the main prayer is home-cooked food. It says the chargesheet is filed with Section 173(8) CrPC, which says that further investigation is going on…' 'The SC (two-judge) bench takes the view that once you file a chargesheet with 173(8), you will get default bail because it is an incomplete chargesheet,' the SG said, adding that this was contrary to multiple larger-bench judgements. 'Thereafter all-across India, people started filing default bail applications once chargesheet was filed (with section 173(8)).' The counsel for the respondents sought to clarify that in the writ petition for allowing home-cooked food, the IA for default bail was filed before the first hearing of the case. On the first hearing, IA was allowed, and notice was issued in the writ petition. The SG said if the court did not want to look at the recall request, it can still consider the ED's SLP filed against the Delhi High Court order and settle the law. The court finally agreed to list it before a three-judge bench.
Hindustan Times
2 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
HC overturns acquittal of four in 1984 riots case, orders retrial of surviving accused
The Delhi high court has set aside a nearly 40-year-old verdict that acquitted four men in a 1984 anti-Sikh riots case and ordered a retrial, saying the trial was conducted in a 'hasty manner' and that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) failed to make sufficient efforts to collect evidence. (Shutterstock) The case concerned the killing of Harbhajan Singh in Ghaziabad's Raj Nagar on November 1, 1984 — a day after then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's assassination. According to his wife, a group of men attacked and set her husband ablaze and also torched their home. In May 1986, a trial court acquitted the four accused of arson and murder, citing contradictions between the woman's statements to police and in court, as well as the delay in filing the complaint. A bench of justices Subramanian Prasad and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar took up the matter suo motu after prima facie finding faults in the 1986 judgment and describing the investigation as 'perfunctory'. The issue came up while the bench was hearing appeals in another case from the same locality, in which five men — including former Congress councillor Balwan Khokhar, ex-MLA Captain Bhagmal, and Girdhari Lal — were convicted in 2013 for the murder of five Sikhs. Among the appellants in that case was Krishan Khokhar, brother of Balwan Khokhar. The court noted that neither the state nor the victims had challenged the 1986 acquittal, but said it could not ignore a flawed investigation and trial, particularly when the verdict was being cited in other appeals. In its verdict delivered on Monday, the bench said the trial court's decision had resulted in a 'miscarriage of justice' to the victim's wife and children, depriving them of their fundamental right to a fair trial. The judges faulted the CBI for failing to trace the victim's body or recover articles stolen from the house. They also noted that investigators did not associate key witnesses with the probe, including the victim's children — who were present at the time — and neighbours. The court rejected the trial court's conclusion that contradictions in the woman's testimony undermined the case, saying there was enough material to support her account. It also said the investigating agency had not taken 'sufficient efforts' to gather the best possible evidence. 'Failure to order a reinvestigation 40 years after the incident would be turning a Nelson's eye to society's needs and the victim's rights to a comprehensive, free, and fair probe,' the bench said. Quoting the amicus curiae, senior advocate Vivek Sood, the court noted that after the assassination of Indira Gandhi, large-scale violence forced widows, children, and residents to flee their homes for safety. This, it said, meant witnesses would not have been readily available for investigation — but that did not absolve the agency of its duty to secure evidence using the powers under the Criminal Procedure Code. 'These errors have resulted in miscarriage of justice… If not rectified, this may result in loss of hope in our legal system and compromise the interests of society,' the bench observed. Sood argued that the acquittal was 'totally perverse' and ignored the scale of violence, property destruction, and displacement suffered by victims. He pointed out that the complainant herself was forced to leave Delhi after her husband's killing and the loss of her home. While the counsel for the sole surviving accused argued that a retrial would serve no useful purpose, the court clarified that the fresh trial would apply only to him. Proceedings against the three other accused have abated due to their deaths. The CBI has been directed to conclude the probe expeditiously, bearing in mind the age of the case. In a separate ruling, the same bench ordered the reconstruction of four-decade-old trial records in another 1984 anti-Sikh riots case from Raj Nagar. That case concerns the acquittal of five men, including Balwan Khokhar, in the killing of four Sikhs. The court said victims' and society's rights to a fair investigation and trial cannot be undermined by missing files or flawed earlier proceedings, and directed the trial court to undertake the reconstruction.
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Convict given fixed life for 20 yrs entitled to be freed after term: Supreme Court
NEW DELHI: Supreme Court Tuesday held that a convict sentenced to life imprisonment for a fixed term like 20 years is entitled to be released from jail after completing the term and there was no need for him to seek remission of sentence to be free, which is needed in case of simple life imprisonment. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and K V Viswanathan rejected a petition that a convict, even if serving a fixed term, could come out of jail only when his plea for remission of sentence was allowed by govt. The court, which had on July 29 directed release of Sukhdev Pehalwan in the Nitish Katara case, as he had already completed 20 years imprisonment in March, passed a reasoned judgment in the case. "We hold that in all cases where an accused/convict has completed his period of jail term, he shall be entitled to be released forthwith and not continued in imprisonment if not wanted in any other case. We say so in light of Article 21 of the Constitution, which states that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law," the bench said Taking note that many convicts have completed their sentences and are languishing in jail,it directed the order's copy be circulated by SC registry to all home secretaries to ascertain whether any accused/convict has remained in jail beyond the period of sentence.
